Contra Protestantism

What is the saving Gospel?

Written by Boniface

Some time ago our USC apologist Wes Hunt offered a point by point rebuttal to Protestant pastor Matt Slick's "Questions for Catholics." In Part 2 of this series, Wes Hunt will tackle the heart of Slick's objections to the Catholic faith, centering on the question, what is the Gospel? The process of asking a list of "questions" is a common Protestant method for leading Catholics to doubt their faith and give credence to the claims of Protestantism. As Wes Hunt will show, not only are the questions themselves founded on misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the Scriptures, but even the mode of questioning itself is tilted unfairly against the Catholic by giving the false impression of a preponderance of evidence. This method of questioning is not meant to facilitate a sincere search for truth, but rather its purpose is to lead the Catholic along to a predetermined answer.

Read more: What is the saving Gospel?

Slicks's Not-So Slick Questions for Catholics

Written by Boniface

In this post (Part 1) we will be tackling a myriad of questions for Catholics from Reformed Protestant Apologist, Matt Slick. Slick, writing for CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) has created a list of "Questions for Roman Catholics". Apparently, Slick thinks himself to have hit a home run with his supposedly daunting questions for Catholics, so daunting, in fact, that, according to his own perception, Catholics are forced to resort to “ignoring them,” or just “hoping” that they “go away.” As Slick says in his opening paragraph: “The responses vary from defensive tradition to ignoring them and hoping to go away. Some of the questions are easier for Roman Catholics to respond to, and others are not. I hope that these might be helpful in your dialogs with the Roman Catholics as you try to present to them the true and saving gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Read more: Slicks's Not-So Slick Questions for Catholics

Geisler and Mackenzie: Refutation of Sola Scriptura (part 1)

Written by Boniface

By Wesley Hunt. Protestant apologists Ralph Mackenzie and Norman Geisler have put out an apologetic dissertation in defense of one of the hallmark doctrines of the Reformation, namely, sola scriptura. The article is titled, “A Defense of Sola Scriptura,” and seeks, among other things, to provide a thorough yet succinct justification for sola scriptura. Throughout the article, the apologists approach the issue from a number of angles, and it is the goal of this essay to address simply those claims Geisler and Mackenzie make from scripture. The other two posts, which will hopefully be soon to follow, will cover their arguments from both tradition, as well as other miscellaneous arguments presented in their paper. With that in mind, pull up a chair and enjoy the show.

Read more: Geisler and Mackenzie: Refutation of Sola Scriptura (part 1)

Geisler and Mackenzie: Refutation of Sola Scriptura (part 2)

Written by Boniface

In Part 1 of this series, we covered mainly Geisler and Mackenzie’s arguments from scripture. While in this rebuttal you will find they appeal to scripture very often, they appeal to it for the purpose of arguing that every oral tradition taught by either Christ or the apostles, was eventually "inscripturated", that is, recorded in the New Testament. We admire Geisler and Mackenzie for their zeal in supporting what they believe, yet, still, even so, we are reminded of the words of St. Paul: “For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge” (Rm 10:2). With that said, pull up a chair and get comfortable, as we embark on a journey to find out whether all oral traditions had eventually been confined to scripture. As last time, Geisler and Mackenzie's statements will be denoted by GM, Unam Sanctam Catholicam's Wes Hunt will be denoted by W. Hunt.

Read more: Geisler and Mackenzie: Refutation of Sola Scriptura (part 2)

Vincentian Canon and Unanimous Consent of the Fathers

Written by Boniface

In the mid 17th century English Protestant divine William Chillingworth derided the concept of an unbroken apostolic tradition. In his book Religion of the Protestants, Chillingworth asserted that "There have been popes against popes: councils against councils: councils confirmed by popes against councils confirmed by popes: lastly the church of some ages against the church other ages" [1]. This assertion attempts to negate the force of the Catholic argument that Protestantism is not a fitting expression of Christian unity, since Protestant sects contradict each other. Chillingworth argued that the Catholic "unanimous consent of the fathers" is a mere illusion, a dream of Catholic apologists. It was Chillingworth's argument in part that prompted Cardinal Newman to write his famous Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Newman, like many Catholic apologists, responded to this attack referring the principles of the Vincentian Canon.

Read more: Vincentian Canon and Unanimous Consent of the Fathers

Page 1 of 4

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 Next > End >>